It’s quite a website. I first visited it a couple of months ago, after hearing about an atrocious comment that was posted there by an Egyptian, basically saying that Robert Spencer (of JihadWatch) should be killed. And they call people who criticize them “loons”!

To form opinions about loonwatch, readers should visit the site. If you should be inclined to comment on some of their “stories”, however, then once again in the case of dealing with Muslim websites, be prepared for some heavy-handed censorship. The purpose of this post is to provide an example of such censorship, to which I (“Nick McConnell”) just finished being subjected.

Below, I’ll first quote the relevant “story” and then quote the comments, as they now appear. In addition, though (and in a simpler time sequence), I’ve added (and colored) my comments that are still (after two days!) “awaiting moderation”, i.e., the Muslim censors are apparently too afraid to permit them to be posted. The “story” follows:

OK, so I don’t know how Zelenik came up with these numbers, but she’s sticking to them:

Zelenik: “15% Of Islam Is A Religion, 85% Political.”

(newschannel5)

NASHVILLE, Tenn.- The question of religion is playing a major role in one of the most heated congressional primary races in the country.

Republican Lou Ann Zelenik is challenging incumbent republican Diane Black in the sixth congressional district. When asked if she believed if Islam was a real religion, Zelenik said she believed it to be mostly political.

“I consider 15 percent of Islam a religion, 85 percent political. It’s a total way of life. The only ones who do not call Islam a religion are the Muslims because it’s not a religion,” said Zelenik.

“I will tell you I don’t agree with everything that they say in the Islamic religion or ideology or whatever you want to call it, but I think it has been established by the Federal government and it’s protected as a religion and that’s what I am going to abide by is the law,” she said.

The entire interview of both candidates, including their take on the negative ads that have been such a big part of this campaign will air on Inside Politics on News Channel 5+ at 7 p.m. on July 27 or at 5 a.m. Sunday, July 29 on News Channel 5.

I’m confused. So she thinks the federal govts job is to decide what a religion is? Then she decides Islam is 15% religion and 85% Political (not sure what that means by political) mmmmm sounds like she is nuts to me. Sir David

Steve Says:

July 29th, 2012 at 10:47 am

most religions are political

Fred Says:

July 29th, 2012 at 11:36 am

Orthodox Jews also consider Judaism to be a complete way of life, too. (The Jewish Halacha is analogous to Shariah.) I wonder if she would make the same argument regarding orthodox Jews?

Mohammad Says:

July 29th, 2012 at 12:13 pm

Don’t know what she’s smoking, im a muslim, I call it a religion.

CriticalDragon1177 Says:

July 29th, 2012 at 12:52 pm

@Emperor I wonder how she came up with those numbers, probably just pulled them out of thin air.

Nick McConnell Says:

July 29th, 2012 at 12:55 pm

Well, Steve, I can agree with you that “most religions are political” (or maybe better: most organized religions have been and continue to be involved in politics), but there are features of Islam that distinguish it from “approved” political activities in Christianity.

Thus, writers of the New Testament seem to have adopted the ideas of the Stoic philosopher Epictetus, whose book “The Discourse” states (Book Three):

“But the soul will never reject the manifest appearance of the good, any more than persons will reject Caesar’s coin… When then the coin which another uses is a different coin, if a man presents this coin, he receives that which is sold for it.”

I expect that the above idea is the origin of the famous line in the New Testament (e.g., at Luke 20, 25) that starts, “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”, which is interpreted by many (if not most) Christians as support for the separation of “church and state”.

In contrast, fundamentalist Islam doesn’t recognize a distinction between “mosque and state”. For example, as “the right-hand man of the founder of Pakistan” and “prominent Islamic scholar” Allama Pervez (1903-85) wrote:

“Islam is not a ‘religion’ in the ordinary sense of the word. ‘Religion’ is the English equivalent for the Arabic word Mazhah, which does not occur even once in the whole of the Holy Quran. The Quran has, instead, used the word Addeen for Islam, which means a particular way of life.”

Thus, the basic document of Islam (the Quran) seems to make it clear that Islam was never meant to be “just” a religion; instead, it was to be an all-encompassing ideology, similar in extent to Communism. That many modern Muslims seek to separate “mosque and state” is an innovation welcomed by “secular Muslims” but abhorred by Islamic fundamentalists.

mindy1 Says:

July 29th, 2012 at 2:10 pm

WTF is in the water in that state D:

Nassir H. Says:

July 29th, 2012 at 3:30 pm

@Nick McConnell, you’re probably one of the best Islamic scholars on the web, Ph.D. in Islamic Studies from the University of Wikipedia and all. We can tell from the misleading quotations you got straight from the Wikipedia article about Allama Pervez.

In contrast, fundamentalist Islam doesn’t recognize a distinction between “mosque and state”. For example, as “the right-hand man of the founder of Pakistan” and “prominent Islamic scholar” Allama Pervez (1903-85) wrote:

“Islam is not a ‘religion’ in the ordinary sense of the word. ‘Religion’ is the English equivalent for the Arabic word Mazhah, which does not occur even once in the whole of the Holy Quran. The Quran has, instead, used the word Addeen for Islam, which means a particular way of life.”

Please do tell where you got the quotation describing Allama Pervez as a “prominent Islamic scholar.” There’s a reason why you didn’t try back up your nonsense with evidence; the Wikipedia article you got your “information” from actually says Pervez was a “prominent Quranist Islamic scholar.” Note how you left out “Quranist” because it clearly indicates that his views were largely rejected by the Islamic mainstream

You insinuate that he is a “fundamentalist,” yet you don’t really back up this claim with anything other than huffing and puffing about what he thinks about the word “mazhah.” In fact it is clear that he is anything but a fundamentalist: he rejected Hadith, denied that ‘Aisha was 9 when she married the Prophet, criticized the Jamaat-e-Islami, and was palpably anticlerical. He thinks premodern Muslim rulers fabricated the Hadith.

Your quote describing him as Jinnah’s “right hand man” is again from the Wikipedia article – although it’s worth mentioning that no citation is given for this in the article itself. Personally, I had never heard of Allama Pervez before your rant. Not that him being associated with Jinnah would matter. As mentioned, he was quite unorthodox in his views. Jinnah himself was liberal when it came to Islam. In fact, the loony “Ibn Warraq” claims (falsely) that Jinnah was an atheist. (Yet another case of loonies contradicting each other left and right, but that discussion is for another time).

Now, a word about Pervez’s claim about “mazhah.” I think he means “madhab” (i.e. doctrine, which is also used to describe Islamic schools of jurisprudence) not “mazhah”—I have no idea where he got that word, though it’s probably related to the fact that South Asians sometimes pronounce the Arabic “dh” as “z.” As for “addeen,” both my Arabic dictionary and Google Translate render it as “religion.” But apparently it’s more complicated then that.

Anyways, congratulations, you’re a moron.

Nick McConnell Says:

July 29th, 2012 at 4:25 pm

Nassir, I may be a moron; others can form their own opinions. In that regard, I invite them to check out my website (at http://zenofzero.net/ ), where they’ll find that, in fact, at least some others don’t consider me to be a moron, e.g., I do have my Ph.D.

Meanwhile, though, your response has resulted in a more significant charge against you (than your claim that I’m a moron), namely, that you’re impolite. As a result, I’ll not communicate with you further.

Yet, for others, there’s another point that might be worthwhile considering. Whereas a religion is probably best defined by the people who practice it (rather than via assessments by any “scholars”) and whereas I wouldn’t be surprised if roughly 85% of the Egyptians who voted in their recent elections expressed their desire for Islamic parties (and about 15% for secularists), then perhaps such results are the basis of Zelenik’s statement.

[“Well, Steve, I can agree with you that “most religions are political” (or maybe better: most organized religions have been and continue to be involved in politics), but there are features of Islam that distinguish it from “approved” political activities in Christianity.”]

This is an odd statement to make. Since really Christianity especially now and certainly in the past has been the very essence of a political ideology. Much of which we see displayed in political policy from abortion, gay marriage, political imagery/statements made by politicians to governmental operations wars, holidays. The list goes on. Here Christian belief is a system it dictates reproductive rights, who you sleep with, has a legal system that states its based on Judeo-Christian law, Sundays are a day of rest so everything should be closed technically etc. To summarize Christian beliefs dictate, marriage, sex, work, war etc. So to state that Christianity is not a system by itself is incredibly misleading.

[In contrast, fundamentalist Islam doesn’t recognize a distinction between “mosque and state”. For example, as “the right-hand man of the founder of Pakistan” and “prominent Islamic scholar” Allama Pervez (1903-85) wrote: “Islam is not a ‘religion’ in the ordinary sense of the word. ‘Religion’ is the English equivalent for the Arabic word Mazhah, which does not occur even once in the whole of the Holy Quran. The Quran has, instead, used the word Addeen for Islam, which means a particular way of life.”]

By your classification Vatican City is pretty much done in for because here we have no separation of church and state. So does that mean that Christianity is a political system? Especially since the Vatican is considered a country/state.

[“Thus, the basic document of Islam (the Quran) seems to make it clear that Islam was never meant to be “just” a religion; instead, it was to be an all-encompassing ideology, similar in extent to Communism. That many modern Muslims seek to separate “mosque and state” is an innovation welcomed by “secular Muslims” but abhorred by Islamic fundamentalists.”]

Ok here is a question what exactly makes Christianity a religion? What is the criteria for making or constituting a religion? List those down and lets compare. I await your reply.

Octane Says:

July 29th, 2012 at 7:39 pm

Oh and the above was directed @Nick McConnell

Nick McConnell Says:

July 30th, 2012 at 3:04 am

[Note: I’m inserting this post, here, at an earlier time than the next post, so the reading would be a little easier.]

Octane, I agree with your first paragraph. Note, however, that I didn’t write (nor even mean to suggest) that: “Christianity is not a system by itself.” I agree that making such a statement would be “incredibly misleading”, but again, I didn’t make it!

What’s important is that, during the past few hundred years (in large measure thanks to the intelligence and bravery of, initially, such people as Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison), most Western nations have erected a “wall” to separate religion from politics. To be sure, it’s a wall that religious fundamentalists (of course including Christian fundamentalists) continuously attempt to breach, but in general, the wall continues to hold. Unfortunately, though, such “secularism” has yet to be established in most Muslim countries.

I also agree that your example of the Vatican conflicts with the general trend of secularism in the West. But the Vatican is a relic of the past, the last holdout of Europe’s Dark Ages, now withered to only 44 hectares, and surely it won’t be much longer until it vanishes with the ignorance that created it.

As for your questions, “what exactly makes Christianity a religion?”, and “what is [are] the criteria for making or constituting a religion?”, my opinion is that, fundamentally, it’s the same as the source of all organized religions, i.e., as the French writer Stendhal (Marie-Henri Beyle, 1783–1842) wrote: “All religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of the few.”

With respect to your request for a “list” (of details) for “making or constituting a religion”, I’m sorry, but responding to your request would be, not only onerous, but (I think) rather superfluous. The essence of all religions is dogma (i.e., “principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true”); the essence of secularism (or humanism) is to base decisions, not on dogma, but on evidence.

Thus, in the viewpoint of secularists (or humanists), i.e., those who realize that in the open system known as ‘reality’, the best we can do is ascertain the probability that some claim is true (see, e.g., http://zenofzero.net/docs/T1_Truth_&_Knowledge.pdf), dogma doesn’t belong in the public forum. If a claim is made in the public forum (e.g., about “abortion, gay marriage… wars, holidays”) then secularists demand to see data that support the claim, and if no evidence (only dogma) is offered to support it, then we reject it as religious rubbish.

I wonder if Ms Zelenik knows that 48% of statistics are made up! Also nice one Nassir. I like the University of Wiki line

As for Nick McConnel you may have a point in where Ms Zelenik got her figures from although I dont see the connection myself and would not votes for someone who does not understand mathermatics never mind she is obviously a nut, nice to see you do have a brain when you try. We like people who have their own opinions here and dont like those who just copy from wiki or the works of Robert Spencer , TROP or other sites with out giving their sources. If you have a Phd ,why drop your standards?

Sir David Vice President Leftwing Mooslim Alliance West Anjou Branch

Submitted but Censored (i.e., it sat there, “awaiting moderation”, but never appeared):

“Sir David”

Re. your apparent suggestion that I don’t supply sources (for quotations), realize on the one hand, that many websites that permit comments don’t permit links (or, as seems to be the case here and is definitely the case at Al Jazeera, adding links delays the appearance of comments; e.g., here, my comments don’t appear for hours, “awaiting moderation” – and at Al Jazeera, sometimes the comments with links never appear!); consequently, I tend to avoid providing links. And on the other hand, when I put quotations in quotation marks (as I did, for the quotes you mention), then it’s easy to find the source using a search engine such as Google’s (as what’s-his-name apparently, easily did, who also apparently has troubles with Wikipedia – which is something he should take up with Wikipedia, not me).

In sum, then, I reject any suggestion that I have dropped my standards. I do admit, however, to modifying my normal procedure (e.g., see my online book) to conform to the changing reality of the internet world.

And whereas you apparently appreciate math and question if I do have my Ph.D., I trust that you’ll have a satisfying experience if you’ll read the following chapters in my book:

http://zenofzero.net/docs/IhHypothesesandProbabilities.pdf

http://zenofzero.net/docs/T1_Truth_&_Knowledge.pdf

http://zenofzero.net/docs/T2_Truth_&_Understanding.pdf

Incidentally, if you are competent in Bayes’ method, perhaps you’ll alert me if you know if the material at the start of the third chapter (referenced above) has been published. I don’t think it has been – and I obviously consider it important.

Hatethehaterz Says:

July 30th, 2012 at 2:21 am

@Nick McConnell: Well according to your website, your PhD is in aerospace engineering; not religious studies or anything else which would serve to qualify your statements here on the topic of Islam. So Nasser does have a point when he critiques your statements as lacking legitimate knowledge of Islam or Muslims (getting info from wikipedia for example). Furthermore, I noticed that you frequent the site of richard dawkins (or at least you thanked people you interacted with on his site). His understanding of Islam is ignorant, biased, and highly misleading. If richard “Islam is an unmitigated evil” dawkins is a source of info for you, then I’m not surprised that your comments make little to no sense (I too had never heard of Allama Parvez until your comment).

As far as labelling Islam “political,” you do understand what Zelenik and like minded people are going for here, don’t you? They have been trying for some time now to frame Islam as a “political ideology” as oppose to a religion; because then it would lose its protection under the 1st amendment (or that is their belief anyways). It is an attempt to deny American Muslims our right to practice our faith. So I find it problematic and counterproductive to label Islam in such a fashion.

Islam is indeed a complete way of life. But that doesn’t make it any less of a religion. In fact it makes it more than a mere set of rituals to be practiced one or more day a week.

I also don’t follow the comparison to communism. Which “communism” are you referring to? The egalitarian ideal of communism, which favors an equal distribution of wealth? Or the reality of communism which is (or has been) practiced in modern times in the form of authoritarian regimes? Islam does favor a more equalitarian distribution of wealth, but beyond that, I see nothing in common between the two. Unless that was just meant to be an insulting comparison?

Submitted but still “awaiting moderation”, i.e., it, too, was censored:

Hatethehaterz,

Your line of reasoning leads to interesting consequences. By your reasoning, failure to have formal education in a specific topic disqualifies comments. That’s interesting. Given that even clerics describe “God” as unknown and unknowable, then all comments about “God” should be terminated. Sounds good to me.

Re. your question, “you do understand what Zelenik and like minded people are going for here, don’t you?” Yes, I think I do, and it’s not “an attempt to deny American Muslims our right to practice our faith.” I, for one (and, I expect, other “like minded people” as well) have no interest in perversions people practice in privacy (provided that innocents aren’t molested, e.g., by indoctrinating children in religious balderdash). Instead, I see American efforts to identify Islam as an ideology as attempts to protect the American Constitution from being overthrown by a backward ideology.

You state that you “don’t follow the comparison [of Islam] to communism”, “unless that was just meant to be an insulting comparison”. There are many similarities between the current threats to the American Constitution by Islam and prior threats from Communism, including 1) both are complete ideologies, 2) based on dogma, 3) funded by foreign governments, and 4) that seek to replace our Constitution with their ideologies. Another similarity will be: failure.

Nick McConnel I had a look at your website and came across this “Actually, when clerics controlled some society (and still control many Islamic societies).”

Would you care to list these many Islamic societies?

You seem to know or have you been mining wiki again lots about philosophy but I am not sure how much you know about Islam. Have you read the Quran?

You also wrote “ That’s one way that “truth” and terror can be intertwined, described brilliantly by George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair, 1903–1950) in his 1949 book entitled 1984, e.g., If all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed… then the lie passed into history and became truth.”

The trouble is you have seem to accepted the truth of Ms Zelenik. Read the lessons of history ,read what happened to the Jews 1930′s and 40′s europe. Then think about what is happening to muslims now.

What is the lie and what is the truth?

I am not a muslim I just believe that people should be allowed to believe what they will. If rationality as you think it is to triumph it will do it by force of argument not force of lies.

David

Submitted but once again the Muslim censors at loonwatch had their way:

So, loonwatch censors are busy, are they? As a result, at one of my blogs I’ll post my response to Hatethehaterz and to David’s first comment, both of which I’ve already submitted (and which sat there, awaiting moderation/censorship, for hours). At my blog, I’ll also post my response to David’s second comment, which I haven’t submitted here, yet, but I assume that it would be to no avail, at least until the censors permit the first response to him. And I suppose that the censors won’t have the courage to post this, but that’s okay, it’ll display their colors better and I’ll still post my other responses (along with this explanation) at the referenced blog, which will eventually be noticed and reflect appropriately on loonwatch. Of course, if the censors do have the guts to post this, then I’ll resubmit my censored responses to see what happens.

Response to David’s second comment (Not submitted: What’s the point?! I expect that the cowards at loonwatch will, once again, be too frightened to permit it to be posted.)

Well, David, my response to your first question is: It depends on what’s meant by “control”. Of course, Iran is a case of “complete control” by Islamic clerics, but even in the case of Saudi Arabia, ostensibly controlled by the King, the clerics (e.g., the religious police) obviously have a huge amount of “control”, not only over the people but even over what the King is willingly to attempt (e.g., research the trouble he got into by permitting coeducation in his new university). Then, think of Afghanistan, where neither the Taliban leaders could nor Karzai can stray far from “the Islamic party line” without clerics moving the people to react. Similarly in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Egypt (and throughout North Africa). Now, even Indonesian and Malaysian politicians are kowtowing to demands of the clerics.

Re. your “have you been mining wiki again”, I’d suggest that you find yourself a better mentor from whom to learn internet etiquette than what’s-his-face.

With respect to your second question (about how much I know about Islam and if I’ve read the Quran), I’ll refer you to my book. In particular, see chapters Qx25 – Qx29 (where I go through the Quran, line by line) and see chapters Yx33 – Yx35 (where I survey Islam).

Re. your “The trouble is you have seem to accepted the truth of Ms Zelenik”, my response is: Where the devil did you get that?! I don’t even know who she is – nor do I care to know!

As for your recommendation to “read the lessons of history”, have a look at my Chapters Yx1 – Yx39: those are my notes from “read[ing] the lessons of history” about “the God Lie”. And as for “what is happening to Muslims now”, in my view, what’s happening is that a dying religion (Islam) is being pumped up by petro-dollars.

I totally agree with you that “people should be allowed to believe what they will” (besides, they’ll do it, anyway, no matter what’s allowed!), but I’m not so sanguine as you apparently are about the efficacy of rationality: witness the God Lie, which is irrational emotionalism in its extreme. As Goethe said: “Feeling is all.”

That’s why I suggested (in Chapter X27) that, to eliminate the God Lie, perhaps the best way is to stimulate people to experience the feeling of shame for having adopted such “patently infantile ideas” as the existence of any god. When progress is made with that undertaking (emotionally), then maybe additional progress can be made “rationally” (or, more explicitly, by getting people to practice the scientific method in their daily lives, thereby to hold their beliefs only as strongly relevant evidence warrants).

In sum, what a bunch of cowards such Muslim censors are! I’ve now shown examples in four recent posts. What, I wonder, are they afraid of:

• New ideas?

• That some of their impressionable readers will be “led astray” by the new ideas?

• That they’ll lose their Middle Eastern sponsorship money if they permit ideas at their websites that conflict with the “party line”?

• That if they don’t show their support for Islam, then Muslim killers will turn on them?

But of bigger concern to me is the question: Why aren’t our elected leaders investigating such organizations as loonwatch that so forcefully and deceitfully promote Islam?

Islam isn’t just a religion; it’s a totalitarian ideology that runs on fear, fear that’s now greased by foreign pertro-dollars. Devout Muslims don’t tolerate criticism, doubts, or questions: Muslim killers ensure conformity by instilling fear (mostly, among fellow Muslims). Islam doesn’t respect individualism; like the Borg, its mantra is: “Resistance if futile; you will be assimilated.”

As a totalitarian ideology, Islam is similar to Nazism and Communism. It’s also called “Islamofascism”, a term described by Christopher Hitchens as follows:

Both movements [Islam and fascism] are based on a cult of murderous violence that exalts death and destruction and despises the life of the mind. (“Death to the intellect! Long live death!” as Gen. Francisco Franco’s sidekick Gonzalo Queipo de Llano so pithily phrased it.) Both are hostile to modernity (except when it comes to the pursuit of weapons), and both are bitterly nostalgic for past empires and lost glories. Both are obsessed with real and imagined “humiliations” and thirsty for revenge. Both are chronically infected with the toxin of anti-Jewish paranoia (interestingly, also, with its milder cousin, anti-Freemason paranoia). Both are inclined to leader worship and to the exclusive stress on the power of one great book. Both have a strong commitment to sexual repression – especially to the repression of any sexual “deviance” – and to its counterparts the subordination of the female and contempt for the feminine. Both despise art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence; both burn books and destroy museums and treasures.

There isn’t a perfect congruence. Historically, fascism laid great emphasis on glorifying the nation-state and the corporate structure. There isn’t much of a corporate structure in the Muslim world, where the conditions often approximate more nearly to feudalism than capitalism, but Bin Laden’s own business conglomerate is, among other things, a rogue multinational corporation with some links to finance-capital. As to the nation-state, al-Qaida’s demand is that countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia be dissolved into one great revived caliphate, but doesn’t this have points of resemblance with the mad scheme of a “Greater Germany” or with Mussolini’s fantasy of a revived Roman empire?

Technically, no form of Islam preaches racial superiority or proposes a master race. But in practice, Islamic fanatics operate a fascistic concept of the “pure” and the “exclusive” over the unclean and the kufar or profane. In the propaganda against Hinduism and India, for example, there can be seen something very like bigotry. In the attitude to Jews, it is clear that an inferior or unclean race is being talked about (which is why many Muslim extremists like the grand mufti of Jerusalem gravitated to Hitler’s side). In the attempted destruction of the Hazara people of Afghanistan, who are ethnically Persian as well as religiously Shiite, there was also a strong suggestion of “cleansing.” And, of course, Bin Laden has threatened force against U.N. peacekeepers who might dare interrupt the race-murder campaign against African Muslims that is being carried out by his pious Sudanese friends in Darfur.

This makes it permissible, it seems to me, to mention the two phenomena in the same breath and to suggest that they constitute comparable threats to civilization and civilized values. There is one final point of comparison, one that is in some ways encouraging. Both these totalitarian systems of thought evidently suffer from a death wish. It is surely not an accident that both of them stress suicidal tactics and sacrificial ends, just as both of them would obviously rather see the destruction of their own societies than any compromise with infidels or any dilution of the joys of absolute doctrinal orthodoxy. Thus, while we have a duty to oppose and destroy these and any similar totalitarian movements, we can also be fairly sure that they will play an unconscious part in arranging for their own destruction, as well.

Nothing that an “outsider” (such as Hitchens) could write about Islam, however, would be as damning as what has been written by insiders. Some examples follow.

• As written more than 600 years ago by the Muslim historian and philosopher Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406):

In the Muslim community, jihad is a religious duty because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the jihad was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense. But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.

• Consistent with the above-described historically-verifiable Muslim mission is the recent (14 August 2007) statement by the current President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

There is no truth on earth but monotheism and following tenets of Islam, and there is no way for salvation of mankind but rule of Islam over mankind.

• Another recent example is the following excerpt from a 2007 speech by the acting speaker of the Palestinian Legislative council, Ahmad Bahr:

“You will be victorious” on the face of this planet. You are the masters of the world on the face of this planet. Yes, [the Koran says that] “you will be victorious”, but only “if you are believers”. Allah willing, “you will be victorious”, while America and Israel will be annihilated, Allah willing. I guarantee you that the power of belief and faith is greater than the power of America and Israel. They are cowards, as is said in the Book of Allah: “You shall find them the people most eager to protect their lives.” They are cowards, who are eager for life, while we are eager for death for the sake of Allah. That is why America’s nose was rubbed in the mud in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Somalia, and everywhere… Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, vanquish the Americans and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one…

But more to the current point about an expanding Muslim menace in America, the following examples are illustrative.

• In the first example below are statements made by senior members of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR):

CAIR chairman Omar M. Ahmad… in July 1998 told a crowd of California Muslims, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.” In a similar vein, CAIR board member Imam Siraj Wahaj calls for replacing the American government with a caliphate, and warns that America will crumble unless it “accepts the Islamic agenda”.

Address people according to their minds. When I speak with the American,I speak with someone who doesn’t know anything.

• The second example is from a policy document written by a member of (and for) the Muslim Brotherhood in America. The entire document was entered as evidence by the U.S. in the 2008 trial against the Holy Land Foundation (HLF). As stated in the referenced Wikipedia article:

The memorandum was written in 1991 by Mohamed Akram, a senior Hamas leader in the U.S., a member of the Board of Directors for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America (also known as the Ikhwan) and one of many unindicted coconspirators in the HLF trial.

Pertinent paragraphs of the document (Note: the English translation starts on hand-written page 15) include the following:

In order for Islam and its Movement to become “a part of the homeland” in which it lives, “stable” in its land, “rooted” in the spirits and minds of its people, “enabled” in the live [sic] of its society and has firmly-established “organizations” on which the Islamic structure is built and with which the testimony of civilization is achieved, the Movement must plan and struggle to obtain “the keys” and the tools of this process in carry [sic] out this grand mission as a “Civilization Jihadist” responsibility which lies on the shoulders of Muslims and – on top of them – the Muslim Brotherhood in this country.

The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan [members of the Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes…

To “oppose and destroy these and any similar totalitarian movements”, active in “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions”, a sensible first step would seem to be for our elected leaders to investigate them, find out who’s funding them, determine if any laws are being broken, and if necessary, recommend new laws to constrain such crazies. Questions that I’d like answered include:

• Who funds loonwatch?

• Is it correct that loonwatch is a front for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)?

• Who funds CAIR?

• Who funds the Muslim Brotherhood in North America?

• Who has funded all the new Muslim indoctrination centers (also known as ‘mosques’)?

With respect to the final question listed above, readers may find interesting a CAIR representative’s response to the assessment by Shaikh Hisham Kabbani (a Sufi “spiritual figure” associated with the Islamic Supreme Council of America) that 80 percent of the Sunni mosques in America are controlled by the radical, extremist Wahhabi sect of Saudi Arabia.

And if investigations determine what I expect is occurring (i.e., that Middle Eastern petro-dollars are funding Muslim attempts to replace our Constitution with Sharia Law, so Muslim leaders can rule America), if appropriate political and policing actions are not taken by our government, and if you don’t want to become assimilated by the Islamic Borg, then an obvious next step is to replace our elected officials with those whose oaths means something when they swear to “support and defend the Constitution” or to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States”. And if that fails, too, then subsequent steps are also obvious: follow the footsteps of America’s founders.

Postscript:

Subsequently at loonwatch, others have directed comments to me, but once again, loonwatch (CAIR?) censors won’t let me respond. So, below I’ll first quote comments/questions posted by “approved” people and then present my responses – if censorship at loonwatch were eliminated.

moosern Says:

July 30th, 2012 at 1:44 pm

@Nick, Where in Christian doctrine does it call for a separation of church and state? The establishment cause in our Constitution is there for the very reason that throughout European history the blending of Church and State was destructive. Our founding fathers were very much aware of this, having seen and known about centuries of warfare in Europe which had monarchs often invoking religion as a means to rally their troops and fill the coffers of themselves and the clergy. The influence of the clergy in Europe up until the 20th century led to corruption of both church and state (very similar to bank and state today). Nick, actually research the limits placed on rulers under Islamic law. The political aspect of Islam is limiting on the state. Religious minorities are not allowed to be persecuted, are allowed to worship, are allowed to manage their own affairs, pay less in taxes than Muslims, are exempt from military duty, and don’t have to follow sharia law.

As of 2000 75 nations that have state religions 29 are Muslim, 40 are Christian 4 are Buddhist 1 Hindu and 1 Jewish. That means Christianity is the state religion of over half of the nations with state religions, those numbers don’t include the many countries, mainly in Europe, that have official religions meaning that the state has to approve religions before they can either be active or receive the benefits that the official religions enjoy. Caesarropapism only exists in Christianity today, the Pope being the head of state of The Vatican and the head of the Roman Catholic Church and Queen Elizabeth being the head of state of the countries of the British Commonwealth and the head of the Church of England. Iran is close to having this, but the Supreme leader of Iran is not the head of Shia Islam.

Yes, there is influence of clergy on politics in Islamic countries. There is also influence of clerics in Christian countries, Buddhist countries, Hindu countries, The Jewish country and any country where religion isn’t outright banned. Just look at the influence the extremist Christians are attempting to lever in the US at present.

My response would probably be something similar to the following, if loonwatch censorship were “deactivated”.

Moosern

With respect to your first question: as far as I know, there’s no “Christian doctrine” that calls for a separation of church and state. I didn’t suggest that there was. I suggested only what many others have suggested, namely, that support for separation of church and state can be found in the New Testament, e.g., at Mark 12, 17:

“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

And yes, I agree with you that it was an important innovation of “our founding fathers” to promote separation of church and state, a separation that’s still resented by many Christians.

Your recommendation that I “research the limits placed on rulers under Islamic law” is challenging, but it seems rather pointless, since ~1400 years of experiences have shown that Muslim rulers can relatively easily ignore any such limitations.

Further, I think the fact that Muslim leaders have been able to ignore any such limitations reveals major failures of Muhammad as a political leader. Thus, and unlike Jefferson, Madison, et al., Muhammad incorporated neither the rights of people to choose (and to reject) leaders nor “checks and balances” within the governmental system, able to constrain excesses.

As for your claim that in some (ideal?) Muslim state: “Religious minorities are not allowed to be persecuted, are allowed to worship, are allowed to manage their own affairs, pay less in taxes than Muslims, are exempt from military duty, and don’t have to follow sharia law”, I’ll respond only: doesn’t it show you how inadequate Muhammad was as a political leader, when his “ideal” has not only never been realized but also: the antithesis of his ideal (persecution of minorities, denying them basic human rights, confiscation of their property, brutal “dhimmitude”, enslavement, etc.) has been the norm for essentially all “Islamic” countries?

And yes, I agree that clerics attempt to influence politics in all countries. For the past 10 years, by writing my book, I’ve been doing what I can to stop them.

Well the initial implication of this discussion is that Islam is not a religion. This notion is then fortified by an argument that because Islam is all encompassing it cannot constitute a religion.

My point here is that all religions are systems and are all encompassing whether or not you choose to observe those rules/systems is a personal choice. But that certainly does not negate those systems from existing.

Your initial argument in which you were responding to Steve stated that “but there are features of Islam that distinguish it from “approved” political activities in Christianity.” But you haven’t formally stated what those “approved” political activities are. Really no inference is needed as to what is meant here based upon the article. Which Im sure you know as the argument you are putting forth is that Islam is a political ideology.

Again to reiterate Im pointing out that it isn’t and if you hold Christianity to the same yardstick it would be considered the same or any other religion for that matter.

While you do put forth an argument stating that there is separation of church and state. Based upon the aforementioned biblical passage. There are many others that dictate common decorum of social behaviour, political behaviour and economic behaviour in the Bible (the 10 commandments come to mind). Now we can debate the merits of the interpretation of the passage you put forward to be quite honest I think that passage does not insinuate anything at all about separation of church and state and if it did then it clearly contradicts many other passages depicting how a society should be run.

So if you accept that Christianity is a system then it is in fact not a religion but a cleverly guised ideology being hewn into manifest political ideology as tool for whoever wields it most effectively. Again Im sure you have clearly seen this in American politics where faith Christian faith is professed and used as a tool to govern the masses and sway their vote to be under Christian rule. Why? Because they do not want non-Christian or anti-Christian laws in place. i.e. Gay marriage, abortion, etc etc. You get the idea. So really Christianity is coming up more as a political mores than simply a religious one.

While to be sure you are stating that there have been walls erected. Those walls that separate religion from politics is more like a fence. It is porous and religion has infiltrated it perfectly. In fact if that was the case why would there be such a need for politicians to show how religious they are? Major politicians having a particular Christian minister praying for them, consulting them showing how “Christian they are”. So what you are saying is actually not correct. In fact I do remember Pat Robertson praying for GW Bush quite a bit. And the Christian right has had quite the impact on politics. Im not sure how you can argue otherwise when we can all see it clearly. =/

With respect to your statement of secularism and you stating that a Muslim country has yet to establish that. I give you Turkey. Muslim country. Secular.

As per the list or the criteria. There are basic tenants of what constitutes a religion. The fact is just because a few political hacks are trying to convince the world that Islam is not a religion is frankly ludicrous. While you have stated you are a PhD, I have to ask you if your leading institutions Ivy Leagues, Europe with its unbiased secular based government and institutions and respected scholars in the field of religion accept that Islam is a religion. Then really how is the word of a politician not trained nor vetted in the field of religion able to state with confidence that Islam is not a religion. In fact one has to wonder how anyone can even latch on to this idea is beyond me. The poster above gave a quick rundown of what constitutes a religion and we have it above. Islam fits the bill.

That’s my two cents.

My response would probably be something similar to the following, if the loonwatch censors weren’t so fearful.

Octane,

With respect to your “two cents”, I’m glad that you didn’t have a nickel!

Re. your “Islam is not a religion”, I don’t know who has (foolishly) made that statement. I expect I wrote, “Islam is not JUST a religion”, which is a different idea.

Re. your “But you haven’t formally stated what those “approved” political activities are”, what I was referring to is that, in the U.S., clerics can’t preach politics from their pulpits – or their organizations will lose their tax exempt status.

Yet, in general, I agree with your indictment of Christian influences on U.S. politics. I’ve been fighting it for years, e.g., see here.

You state:

“With respect to your statement of secularism and you stating that a Muslim country has yet to establish that. I give you Turkey. Muslim country. Secular.”

You’ve misquoted me. I stated: “Unfortunately, though, such ‘secularism’ has yet to be established in most Muslim countries.”

Re. your final paragraph, again it seems you are ignoring the “just” in the statement “Islam is not JUST a religion.” I assure you that I agree that Islam is a religion, in the sense that, similar to cases in Judaism, Christianity, etc., adherents claim (without a single shred of evidence to support their claim) that some giant magic-man-in-the-sky (“God”) made the universe, is still in control, demands obedience, and respective (con artist) clerics are his spokesmen. I also agree with:

• Joseph Lewis’ assessment of such nonsense:

It is the last of the great schemes of thievery that man must legally prohibit so as to protect himself from the charlatans who prey upon the ignorance and fears of the people. The penalty for this type of extortion should be as severe as it is of other forms of dishonesty.

• Henry Mencken, who wrote:

God is the immemorial refuge of the incompetent, the helpless, the miserable. They find not only sanctuary in His arms but also a kind of superiority, soothing to their macerated egos: He will set them above their betters.

• And especially with M.M. Mangasarian, who observed:

Religion is the science of children; science is the religion of adults.

15 February 2012

*****
Well, once again: I wasn’t planning on posting more at this blog (or at my other blog) until I finished going through my book, trying to “clean up the writing” (a task in which I’ve now been engaged, for more than 8 hours per day, every day, for more than a year – and it’ll probably take me another year to finish!), but recent events have compelled me to alter my plans.

In particular, this post resulted from the recent arrest of Saudi citizen Hamza Kashgari (spelled Kashghari in some news reports, and variously described as a “poet”, “blogger”, “writer”, and “journalist”) on the astoundingly primitive charge of “blasphemy” (viz., “the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things”). I felt the need to do what I could to try to protect Hamza from having his head chopped off (at the insistence of barbaric Saudi clerics). One of my actions was to submit comments on stories about Hamza carried in the English edition of the Saudi paper Arab News.

To see how my attempts to comment led to this post, below I’ve reproduced, first, one of the relevant reports about Hamza published by Arab News.

RIYADH: In a new development in the case of Saudi writer Hamza Kashghari, who wrote a few tweets that were considered slanderous to Almighty Allah and His Prophet (peace be upon him), the Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Religious Edicts (Ifta) issued a strongly worded statement in which it said mocking Allah or His Prophet is a downright sacrilegious act, kufr (infidelity) and apostasy that should no go undetected, local daily Al-Eqtisadiah reported Thursday.

"Whoever dares make a mockery of Allah, the Prophet or the Holy Book undermines the religion and displays enmity toward it. It is the duty of the rulers to try such a criminal," the committee said, warning Muslims to stay away from such practices so as to avoid exasperating God.

The committee issued its statement after a meeting under its chairman Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh, the Grand Mufti.

The Prophet's Sunnah and Sciences, an Internet site, also strongly denounced Kashghari's blunders and urged the authorities to take stringent actions against him. "This is a sacrilegious action necessitating harsh punitive measures to deter others who might think of doing the same thing," supervisor of the website Faleh Al-Saqeer said.

He expressed confidence that the rulers of this Islamic country would not allow the culprit to get off scot-free.

According to local press reports, Kashghari left the country two days ago. People close to him said that he repented and regretted what he had said about Allah and His Prophet.

Under Islamic Shariah law, anyone who commits sacrilegious actions that may make him or her kafir should be given three days to repent, failing which the person is to be beheaded.

Before seeing comments on the above report, perhaps readers would like to see what it was that Hamza Kashgari wrote to excite the clerical dictatorship “Ifta” to seek his beheading. The following is from a 10 February 2012 report in The Daily Beast:

Last week, just before the anniversary of the [alleged] Prophet Muhammad’s birth, Hamza Kashgari, a 23-year-old Saudi writer in Jidda, took to his Twitter feed to reflect on the occasion.

“On your birthday, I will say that I have loved the rebel in you, that you’ve always been a source of inspiration to me, and that I do not like the halos of divinity around you. I shall not pray for you,” he wrote in one tweet.

“On your birthday, I find you wherever I turn. I will say that I have loved aspects of you, hated others, and could not understand many more,” he wrote in a second.

“On your birthday, I shall not bow to you. I shall not kiss your hand. Rather, I shall shake it as equals do, and smile at you as you smile at me. I shall speak to you as a friend, no more,” he concluded in a third…

Kashgari has since deleted his Twitter account, and he says some like-minded friends have done the same. He declined to comment on his apology and retraction but insisted his battle was still not lost. “I view my actions as part of a process toward freedom. I was demanding my right to practice the most basic human rights – freedom of expression and thought – so nothing was done in vain,” he says. “I believe I’m just a scapegoat for a larger conflict. There are a lot of people like me in Saudi Arabia who are fighting for their rights.”

I trust that all sane readers understand why I would want to defend Hamza from the idiotic, damnable, power-mongering Saudi clerics, but now, to see the specific reason for this post, have a look at the following Comments that were posted in response to the report in Arab News that I quoted at the outset of this post. Readers might notice that I’ve attempted to segregate the comments using a color scheme; I especially would call interested readers’ attention to the comment by “Majid Lodhi” (which I’ve put in red); my own comments are those attributed to “Nick McConnell”

SYEDAKHLAQAMJADFeb 10, 2012 07:07He must be tried. The punishment should be examplary so that in future no body should dare thinking of such things.

SEEKERFeb 10, 2012 07:10The statement of Al Lajnah Ad-Daaimah Lil Iftaa should have been translated in detail since nowhere in it did they mention that he has to be beheaded. They presented the facts & it's [its] refutation based on sound proofs without any rancour................. Secondly, it's becoming a trend that to be considered a free thinker, modernist, educated one has to condemn or abuse Islaam, it's [its] Prophet & it's [its] Religious Texts. Non Muslims do it regularly but some ''Muslims'' like Salman Rushdie, Tasleema Nasreen & others do it too. ----------------------- Now, one may say, it's Freedom of Expression -------- Is it really, If one questions the number of the Jews massacred by Hitler, it's considered ignorance & arrogance of the highest order & labelled as Anti Zionism & racist. There are many more examples to this --------- One must know that there is never absolute Freedom of Expression allowed even by the so called secularists & liberalists.

MUSLIMFeb 10, 2012 07:13Allaah is the most merciful...even if he dint [didn’t?] really repent..look how he got saved!!

AMERICAN MUSEFeb 10, 2012 13:50The intolerance of the adherents of Islam to divergent views is indeed very sad and depressing of itself. But more significantly for the future of the religion in this modern era, that attitude could surely spell its rejection and decline.

BEMUSEDFeb 10, 2012 13:55What did he say exactly to make everyone want to kill him?

JHKFeb 10, 2012 13:55"spirituality under gun-point"

SKNFeb 10, 2012 14:04He's only 23 years old! I know what he did was wrong, but a little mercy, please!

ABDULFeb 11, 2012 03:25I SEE THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF NON-MUSLIMS HERE POSTING THERE [their] OPINION ON THIS TOPIC. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PERSON [people] WHO CALL THEMSELVES MUSLIM TO BE OKAY WITH WHAT THIS WRITER SAID ABOUT ISLAM. THIS WRITER DESERVE TO BE PUNISH[ed]. I HATE Kashghari.

MUHAMMAD SHAKER HUSSAINFeb 11, 2012 03:26Kasghari irrespective of his repetance after doing the nasty thing can not be excused by any factor of his indulgence/ This kind of etheist [atheist?] have born on this planet earth earlier also. [??] It is not a new thing. Even if Kashgari excused by the royal decree he must be a focal point to the religious scholors and the related organisations as he must be having still an etheist [atheist?] tendencies. I am sure Kashgari can not avoid the punishment by any means. The Almighty God will trap him in a way that he can not escape. These kind of people should be given punishment which they should be remebered throught [through? the] rest of their lives.

MIGUELFeb 11, 2012 13:39ABDUL: "I HATE Kashghari."

you hate what you fear. you fear what makes you feel insecure about yourself. you are a good example of someone who is NOT a believer - just a follower.

UMAIRFeb 11, 2012 13:54I dont agree with the freedom of expression philosophy. If something hurts the feelings of a majority of people, isnt it the right thing to ban it? You follow all the other rules, traffic signals, airport security, taxes etc. Why not follow another simple rule. Dont hurt people's feelings by saying bad things about Allah and Prohet (SAWW). If physical hitting is considered wrong in every society, then why not verbal hitting (when its often proven to be more harmful). This goes for non Muslims.

As for Muslims, there's the punishment of living a lie to your society by blasphemy as you never were Muslim and pretended to be so. The punishment has been decreed by GOD Himself who is ultimately the owner and master of all humans.

A fair trial should be done and he be given every chance to explain.

BLUESKYFeb 12, 2012 00:41If your feelings are so easily hurt and you're so insecure about your God, what does that say about yourself and your religion? Gad, people need to be given the freedom to find their own truth without being under threat of death. In these times, it boggles the mind there are still societies that operate under such oppression. Traffic laws and ethics have nothing to do with your personal spiritual convictions. Let's give people the freedom to find their own way without coercion.

MOHD ELFIE NIESHAEM JUFERIFeb 12, 2012 21:59I am the owner of Ibn Juferi group of websites. We are Malaysian muslims who have are drafting the anti-murtad laws. Once this is passed everyone will be tried as per Islamic shariah laws. Apostasy is dealt with the death penalty. Only this will ensure that muslims do not leave the deen of Islam, which is the only true path and convert to false religions or become Atheists.

Please support our group. Thank you, wassalamu ALaikum rahmatullah.

ZAKIR HUSSAINFeb 12, 2012 22:05I wonder why this so called liberal thinkers like Salman, Tasleema etc are back of [opposed to?] Islam and the Holy prophet, as they have stood the test and criticism of all times. If they are so liberal in their thinking let them debate on the subject of HOlocast and so called Armenian Massacre.

NICK MCCONNELL
Feb 12, 2012 22:05
As Lemuel K. Washburn wrote more than 100 years ago:
"Dogma is the hand of the dead on the throat of the living."

FONDUEFeb 13, 2012 00:05Mohd Elfie: your comment is truly disgusting to the point of making me sick, people have the right to believe what they believe, and in the same way people have the right to become a muslim and thake [take?] the shahada, they also have the right to look for their spiritual path somewhere else, learn a little respect towards humanity please...

CLEARSKYFeb 13, 2012 00:55"Let's give people the freedom to find their own way without coercion" – BLUESKY

This would be true if people are not gullible and who cannot be fooled by politicians like Bush Junior. Quoting Paul Craig Roberts: "But Bush is prepared. He has taught his untutored public that “they hate us for our freedom and democracy. Gentle reader, wise up. The entire world is laughing at you” [Gullible Americans]. And guess what? After 9/11 Bush Junior took away their freedom by Patriot Act so that the Americans will not be hated for their freedom anymore!

ABDUL QADIR KHANFeb 13, 2012 01:24Non-Muslims and liberals stay out of this matter. Let Saudi government deal with their citizen as per rule of their country.

MAJID LODHIFeb 13, 2012 01:36It is illegal in India to speak or write against MK Gandhi. It is illegal in many Western nations to deny the holocaust. It is illegal in most countries in the world to verbally abuse the head of state. It is illegal in Germany to proclaim Nazism. To this day, it is illegal in Western democracies to openly proclaim communism.

What are all these countries trying to protect? In case of India, it is the honor of the 'Father of the Nation'. In case of holocaust, it is to honor the dead and respect their grieving families. In case of Nazism, it is to prevent the mistakes of the past and in case of Communism, it is to protect a way of life i.e. democracy.

So if a mortal being's honor is so important that a country with a population of one billion people respects it, then what do you say about the honor of a person who is followed across the world with more than a billion followers? And more over, what do you say about the One who created this person? the One who is recognized across the face of this Earth, and is openly acknowledged by 95% of the 6 billion people of this world is their Creator?

Surely, there is something wrong in the Western mind these days. How can you not see Atheism as a threat yet recognize communism and nazism as a threat to your way of life? You protect your children from physical harm, yet open them up to spiritual harm in the name of personal choice?

So why can't a person idolize Hitler and adapt Nazism as a personal choice? Because its not personal or spiritual, it is an ideology which manifests into abominable actions. It resulted in the deaths of millions of people in the last century!

Here's what you need to know about Islam. Yes killing is the worst of crimes against humanity. However, according to Abrahamic religions, killing a person will end his/her life in this world, but taking his religion away will make him suffer for eternity. That is why atheist or anyone who opposes Islam is such a danger to the society.

The scholars are not being dogmatic about this, neither are anywhere close to the medievel church in their punishments. They are only calling on the authorities to take appropriate action against a threat to not just the lives of the people, but their hereafter.

By the way, the punishment is not straight-forward beheading. The person is given a chance to explain himself. Then he is educated on the matters he has erred. If he rejects the truth after it is being shown to him, then he is sentenced to death as an apostate. There is a whole process to it and there is no deadline of 3 days as mistakenly mentioned in this article. If he repents even after 20 years, his repentance is accepted. This is the Mercy of Allah.

NICK MCCONNELL
Feb 14, 2012 02:57
Majid Lodhi: Your Comment, with its many misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and mistakes, is nonetheless a declaration of war against all Humanists. So be it. At the outset, however, I should warn you: you will lose.

UMAIRFeb 14, 2012 12:54NICK: Would you like to add some weight to your statement of denial by explaining the mistakes, misundestandings and misrepresentations. MAJID: Excellent comment. JazakAllah!

JACK T.Feb 14, 2012 13:42Majid Lodhi, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. None of those countries have the data [death?] penalty for saying anything.

Only God knows truly if Kashghari has offended God, and if this is the case, then God has all of eternity to impose whatever punishment is appropriate in Gods own view. No man can know how God actually feels about this, and no man has a right to impose punishment on behalf of God.

IBNFeb 14, 2012 16:39SURA-61: As-Saff (7-8)(7) They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah will perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it. (8) It is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, although those who associate others with Allah dislike it.

So, with the final comment shown above, perhaps readers see the reason for this post, namely, to respond to the (damnable) comment by Majid Lodhi (shown, above, in red).

Before doing so, however, perhaps I should illustrate my comment in the final post above that “Arab News has repeatedly refused to post any comments that might upset Muslims”. One example is the following comment (on the above story) that I repeatedly submitted – but it never appeared:

The author of America's Declaration of Independence and its third president, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), said: "I am opposed to any form of tyranny over the mind of man."

America's leader of its revolutionary war and its first president, George Washington (1732-99), said it well: "If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."

After escaping from slavery in America, the great statesman Frederick Douglass (1818-1895) said: "To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker."

A statement by Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) seems especially relevant for today's Saudis: "A people which is able to say everything becomes able to do everything."

That follows, because as Charles Bradlaugh (1833-1891) said: "Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful... Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race."

Of course, all of this is "old news" to the censors of the Comments at Arab News, who have repeatedly demonstrated to me that they're afraid of permitting free speech.

That done, I’ll now respond to Lodhi’s Comment, without concern about the censors at Arab News:

**************

As shown above, my earlier response to Lodhi (which managed to get past the censors at Arab News) contained the statement:

Majid Lodhi: Your Comment, with its many misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and mistakes, is nonetheless a declaration of war against all Humanists.

It is illegal in India to speak or write against MK Gandhi. It is illegal in many Western nations to deny the holocaust. It is illegal in most countries in the world to verbally abuse the head of state. It is illegal in Germany to proclaim Nazism. To this day, it is illegal in Western democracies to openly proclaim communism.

Already his first paragraph contains many “misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and mistakes”. For example, I expect that most people would agree that each country has some dumb laws, but that’s a red herring, because the topic being addressed has nothing to do with legality. Instead, it concerns morality.

The odor of additional red herrings in Lodhi’s first paragraph can be detected by noticing that the topic being addressed is not:

• An immoral law in India dealing with Gandhi (incidentally, although I have written praise of Gandhi, I’ve also written appropriate criticism),

• Immoral laws in several European countries dealing with denial of the Holocaust or with Nazism,

• Immoral laws anywhere dealing with “verbally abus[ing] the head of state” (which may be America’s favorite pastime!), or

• Immoral laws anywhere dealing with Communism – although I’ll add that, in contrast to Lodhi’s claim, I know of no Western democracy in which “it is illegal… to openly proclaim communism.” It’s correct that several European countries do have immoral laws that criminalize the denial of “crimes against humanity… committed by totalitarian communist regimes”, and though I (and many others) consider such laws to be immoral, nonetheless, such laws are vastly different from Lodhi’s claim “it is illegal in Western democracies to openly proclaim communism.”

But all the above points are more red herrings, because the topic being addressed deals with the immoral laws in most Muslim nations of killing people who criticize Islam’s “prophet”, Muhammad, or a fictitious, giant Jabberwock in the sky called “Allah”. Stated differently, what Lodhi’s pitiful argument reduces to is: “Look, Westerners have immoral laws; so, we Muslims get to have immoral laws, too.”

Now I admit that, immediately, I should address both the difference between ‘legality’ and ‘morality’. In addition, I should address the differences in morality adopted by different cultures, as well as the possibility of world-wide agreement on specific moral principles. Doing so thoroughly, however, is a major undertaking – which is why (in part) I provided the reference to my book, in which I devote many chapters to exactly those topics. Here, to reduce my workload, I’ll simply paste my previously posted summary in which I tried to explain why I consider Islam to be “evil”:

My goal for this post is to try to explain what I mean by the following “five foundational evils” of Islam:

At the outset, I should acknowledge that the above-listed evils (or “extreme immoralities”) of Islam are immoral according to my judgment (and also, I’m sure, in the judgments of essentially all secular humanists), but not in the judgments of essentially all Muslims. In their judgments, the topics listed above aren’t “evil” but “good”, because as Ali Sina summarized:

According to Muslims it is not the Golden Rule that defines the good and bad, it is Muhammad who does it. They believe that what is good for Islam is the highest virtue and what is bad for Islam is the ultimate evil. This is the definition of good and evil in Islam.

This is the ethos of all cults. From Asahara’s “Aum Shinrikyo” to Jim Jones’ “People’s Temple” and from Sun Myung Moon’s “Unification Church” to David Koresh’s “Davidian Branch”, the recurring theme is that the cult’s interests override human understanding of right and wrong. In order to advance the interest of the cult, which is regarded as the ultimate good, everything (including lying and even murder and assassination) is permissible. The end is deemed to be so lofty that it justifies the means. This is the same idea of fascism where the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual to it are enforced…

The first requisite to feel the pain and suffering of others is to accept that they have feelings like us and they also feel hurt the way we do. If we deny such feelings on others we do not feel any remorse in abusing them. Muhammad claimed all those who disbelieve in Allah are the worst creatures. He even said that all non-believers will end up in hell where they will be tortured for eternity. How then can Muslims treat equally those whom they believe to be worse than beasts and deserve eternal punishment?

Thereby, just as Emerson said about social justice (“One man’s justice is another’s injustice”), one person’s morality can be another’s immorality. Consequently, before trying to describe details about what I consider to be evils in Islam, it seems appropriate to review my meaning for ‘morality’.

In my [free] on-line book… I devote many chapters to the concepts of ‘good’ and ‘evil’. Here, therefore, I’ll provide only an outline, along with references to more-complete explanations:

• Rather than a “black-versus-white” or “good-versus-evil” view of morality, and rather than struggle to identify appropriate adjectives or modifying phrases (e.g., “partially good”, “somewhat evil”, etc.), it’s convenient to use a numerical scale. At places in what follows, therefore, I’ll identify moral values on a numerical scale ranging from –10 to +10, with –10 corresponding to something judged to be “extremely bad” and +10 corresponding to something judged to be “extremely good”.

• As with any value, moral value has meaning only relative to some objective. For instance, if your goal is to build a sturdy house, then it would be “good” to use appropriate building materials (e.g., the use of bricks and mortar might be judged to have a moral value of +8, and use of lumber, maybe a +6), whereas building a house out of marshmallows and peanut butter, for example, would probably be judged to have a very low moral value (maybe a –7). Consequently, to discuss, evaluate and compare (and perhaps even agree on) morality, it’s first necessary to discuss and compare objectives.

• The root reason why judgments about morality are contentious (e.g., the morality of parents’ indoctrinating their children in religion) is disagreements about fundamental goals. Even a child asks “Why are we here?” – and no one knows the answer with certainty (or even if the question is reasonable). As I reviewed in earlier posts in this series, Zarathustra’s answer (that we’re here to participate in a cosmic war between good and evil) is the basis of the philosophy of both ancient Greek mystics (Pythagoras, Plato, the Stoics…) and the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam…), but the philosophy of both the ancient Greek realists (Democritus, Aristotle, Epicurus…) and most philosophers today is consistent with the fundamental idea of existentialism (Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre…): “existence before essence”. That is, in contrast to religious and metaphysical ideas that each human possesses an “immortal soul” with “eternal essence”, existentialism recognizes that humans first exist – and then we define our goals (or have them defined for us by our experiences and culture).

• Given that humans are goal-driven animals (with feelings of happiness arising when we think that we’re making progress toward achieving our goals), it’s understandable that humans are susceptible even to sometimes-bizarre suggestions about “the purpose of life” (i.e., what our goals “should be”), e.g., to placate some god or to follow in some charismatic leader’s footsteps. Because people adopt different prime goals, they have different concepts of morality (because, again, moral values, as with any values, can be judged only relative to some goal).

• People adopt thousands of goals (e.g., to build houses, to teach their children religion, to be happy, to finish a damnable writing task, etc.), but the prime goals of all humans seem to be similar. Prime goals are those goals for which all other (then, lower-priority) goals would be willingly sacrificed. Even a simple analysis suggests the obvious result that all humans pursue the following trio of interconnected, prime goals: the survival (or even “thrival”) of themselves, their families (whatever extent they recognize to be “family”), and their other values (e.g., honesty, bravery, fidelity, liberty, etc.). Relative to those prime goals, then, we form judgments about morality, as I’ll outline and illustrate below.

• Relative to our prime goal to survive (or better, thrive!), essentially all humans judge that continuing to live has high moral value (maybe a +9 or maybe even a +10, on a morality scale running from –10 to +10), but exceptions occur. Some exceptions arise from confused thought, some exceptions arise from indoctrination (e.g., religious indoctrination in the oxymoronic idea of “life after death” and the ridiculous idea that religious martyrs gain instant access to eternal paradise), but some exceptions arise because, in certain circumstances, another prime goal takes precedence (e.g., even other animals will risk their lives to save the lives of family members, especially their offspring).

• Relative to our prime goal of helping our families survive (whatever extent we recognize for our family), essentially all humans judge that protecting our families has high moral value (ranging perhaps from +1 to +10 on the morality scale, depending on details of the “protection”). In this post, I won’t have need to delve into the huge number of complicated details that arise, also, from what different people consider to be “family members”. Nonetheless, it’s relevant to mention the horrors that have resulted form considering as family only those people who belong to the same tribe, religion, or “race”, as did Ezra (writing as Moses), Muhammad, and Hitler. In wonderful contrast were Zarathustra, the Buddha, Cyrus the Great, Socrates (“I am not an Athenian, nor a Greek, but a citizen of the world”) and the resulting brotherhood sentiments of the Epicureans and Stoics, which were adopted by most Christians and all Humanists.

• Relative to our prime goal of maintaining our other values, judging the morality of any act can become even more complicated, depending on our decision about how knowledge can be gained (i.e., our epistemology) and our resulting worldview. For religious people, their worldview results in their clerics dictating values. For Humanists, i.e., those of us with a naturalistic worldview, each of us must decide on our other values by ourselves.

That said, I can now explain what I mean by labeling the indicated features of Islam to be “foundational evils.” Such judgments are based on my own perspective of morality, two important features of which are the following.

1. In the category of “personal morality”, I consider the highest moral value (i.e., a +10) to be to use one’s brain as best one can (which means more than just thinking: relying on data is essential), i.e., evaluate. In that respect, I generally agree with Socrates’ assessment, “There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance”, although when applied to personal morality, I would prefer a statement similar to: “There is only one good, willingness to learn, and one evil, refusal.”

2. In the category of “interpersonal morality”, I’ve found it difficult to identify a single, all-encompassing description of acts with the highest moral value (i.e., a +10). Elsewhere, I’ve discussed the wisdom reflected in parables and sayings from essentially every culture dealing with love (within limits) and kindness (with keenness). And of course the reason for dealing with others compassionately is as described in ancient Hinduism as karma and in modern American culture as: “What goes around comes around.” For more formal statements of the highest interpersonal-morality, there is Kant’s, “Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end”, as well as my own, “Always recognize that everyone has an equal right to claim one’s own existence.”

With my meaning for ‘morality’ as outlined in the above, perhaps it’s clear why I labeled both the laws mentioned by Lodhi and all Muslim laws dealing with “blasphemy” to be immoral: such laws (not only curtailing freedom of speech but even murdering those who have the audacity to hold opinions different from the Muslim majority) violate the fundamental, interpersonal moral-principle that’s described with such statements as “everyone has an equal right to claim one’s own existence” or “always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end” (e.g., your goal of perpetuating your religion).

So, with that attempt to explain my meaning of ‘morality’, I’ll now turn to additional “misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and mistakes” in Lodhi’s published statement, although in an attempt to be briefer, I’ll provide just a few comments after each of his additional, quoted paragraphs.

What are all these countries trying to protect [with their “immoral” laws]? In case of India, it is the honor of the 'Father of the Nation'. In case of holocaust, it is to honor the dead and respect their grieving families. In case of Nazism, it is to prevent the mistakes of the past and in case of Communism, it is to protect a way of life i.e. democracy.

That may be so (subject to restrictions derived from Lodhi’s mistaken ideas about the laws), but even if it were so, it doesn’t distract from the immorality of the laws, in that they restrict freedom of speech (beyond restrictions needed to protect other humans from physical harm) and, therefore, fail to recognize that “everyone has an equal right to claim one’s own existence” or, in Kant’s version of the fundamental, interpersonal moral-principle, such laws don’t recognize that individuals are ends in themselves.

So if a mortal being's honor is so important that a country [presumably, India] with a population of one billion people respects it, then what do you say about the honor of a person who is followed across the world with more than a billion followers? And more over, what do you say about the One who created this person? the One who is recognized across the face of this Earth, and is openly acknowledged by 95% of the 6 billion people of this world is their Creator?

Here, again, the essence of Lodhi’s argument is: if an immoral law is adopted in India, then why shouldn’t Muslim countries have immoral laws dealing with blasphemy? That’s as sick an argument as I’ve ever encountered, although his additional statement is a close runner-up, which I’ll rephrase this way: whereas at least 99% of all people in the world were convinced that the world is a flat plate, therefore, it was obviously moral to kill those who had the audacity to think otherwise. And if that seems to be an outrageous analogy, recall that the previous Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Ibn Baz, issued a fatwa declaring that anyone who disagreed with the Qur'an that the Sun orbits the Earth was an apostate (and therefore, according to immoral Muslim laws, should be murdered) – a fatwa of comparable enlightenment to the reported ruling against Hamza Kashgari, apparently endorsed by the current Grand Mufti.

Further, I suspect it would be useless to point out to Lodhi (as I describe in detail in my book) that the “Creator” was most likely a symmetry-breaking quantum-like fluctuation in a total void, leading to inflation (or "the Big Bang"), and that the most certain knowledge that humans have been able to gain (even more certain than the knowledge that we exist, for we may all be just simulations in a humongous computer game) is that there are no gods and never were any. I suspect that it’s useless to make those points, because in his Comment, Lodhi demonstrates that he's either unwilling or unable to think about anything that conflicts with his religious delusions.

Such delusions are also illustrated in his next two paragraphs:

Surely, there is something wrong in the Western mind these days. How can you not see Atheism as a threat yet recognize communism and nazism as a threat to your way of life? You protect your children from physical harm, yet open them up to spiritual harm in the name of personal choice?

So why can't a person idolize Hitler and adapt Nazism as a personal choice? Because its not personal or spiritual, it is an ideology which manifests into abominable actions. It resulted in the deaths of millions of people in the last century!

I won’t describe the balderdash contained in those two paragraphs just with such mild terms as “misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and mistakes”; instead, I’ll describe the author as a damnable, egotistical maniac!

That is, who in Hell (or anywhere else) is Lodhi to define for me (or anyone else) what's “spiritual”?! Examples of what’s “spiritual” for me include: to hear Beethoven’s Seventh Symphony again, to discover Axel Strauss’ performance of Rodolphe Krutzer’s Violin Concerto No. 17 in G Major, to finally solve a problem in theoretical physics that confounded the knowledgeable scientific community for more than a decade, to see another beautiful sunrise, to pet a friendly horse’s soft nose, to see my daughter again, and so on. In contrast, Lodhi’s “spirituality” is apparently to continue to “believe” (without a shred of data to support his silly “belief”) that after he dies he’ll have 72 houris (viz., “white raisins”) for his perpetual enjoyment! With all respect that's due, I say to Lodhi: “Blow out your ear, you pompous ass!”

And then, Lodhi enlightens us about how his fellow, maniacal Muslims will murder those who have the audacity to think for themselves.

Here's what you need to know about Islam. Yes killing is the worst of crimes against humanity. However, according to Abrahamic religions, killing a person will end his/her life in this world, but taking his religion away will make him suffer for eternity. That is why atheist or anyone who opposes Islam is such a danger to the society.

The scholars are not being dogmatic about this, neither are anywhere close to the medievel church in their punishments. They are only calling on the authorities to take appropriate action against a threat to not just the lives of the people, but their hereafter.

By the way, the punishment is not straight-forward beheading. The person is given a chance to explain himself. Then he is educated on the matters he has erred. If he rejects the truth after it is being shown to him, then he is sentenced to death as an apostate. There is a whole process to it and there is no deadline of 3 days as mistakenly mentioned in this article. If he repents even after 20 years, his repentance is accepted. This is the Mercy of Allah.

In summary, to all of Lodhi’s comment, including his abominable line

That is why atheist or anyone who opposes Islam is such a danger to the society.

I responded (in my Comment that managed to get past the censors at Arab News):

Majid Lodhi: Your Comment, with its many misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and mistakes, is nonetheless a declaration of war against all Humanists. So be it. At the outset, however, I should warn you: you will lose.

I added “you will lose [the war that Lodhi as well as, quite likely, the majority of Muslims and other religious fundamentalists have declared against Humanists]”, because I’m certain that, in the end, truth will prevail. As M.M. Mangasarian conveyed more than a century ago:

I shall speak in a straightforward way, and shall say today what perhaps I should say tomorrow, or ten years from now – but shall say it today, because I cannot keep it back, because I have nothing better to say than the truth, or what I hold to be the truth. But why seek truths that are not pleasant? We cannot help it. No man can suppress the truth. Truth finds a crack or crevice to crop out of; it bobs up to the surface and all the volume and weight of waters cannot keep it down. Truth prevails! Life, death, truth – behold, these three no power can keep back.

And since we are doomed to know the truth, let us cultivate a love for it. It is of no avail to cry over lost illusions, to long for vanished dreams, or to call to the departing gods to come back. It may be pleasant to play with toys and dolls all our life, but evidently we are not meant to remain children always. The time comes when we must put away childish things and obey the summons of truth, stern and high.

A people who fear the truth can never be a free people. If what I will say is the truth, do you know of any good reason why I should not say it? And if for prudential reasons I should sometimes hold back the truth, how would you know when I am telling what I believe to be the truth, and when I am holding it back for reasons of policy?

The truth, however unwelcome, is not injurious; it is error which raises false hopes, which destroys, degrades and pollutes, and which, sooner or later, must be abandoned…

When we subject what are called “religious truths” to the same tests by which we determine scientific or historical truths, we discover that they are not truths at all; they are only opinions. Any statement which snaps under the strain of reason is unworthy of credence.

But it is claimed that “religious truth” is discovered by intuition and not by investigation. The believer, it is claimed, feels in his own soul – he has the witness of the spirit that [for example] the Bible is infallible and that Jesus is the Savior of man. The Christian does not have to look into the arguments for or against his religion, it is said, before he makes up his mind; he knows by an inward assurance; he has proved it to his own deeper-most being that Jesus is real and that he is the only Savior.

But what is that but another kind of argument? The argument is quite inadequate to inspire assurance, as you will presently see, but it is an argument nevertheless. To say that we must believe and not reason is a kind of reasoning.

This device of reasoning against reasoning is resorted to by people who have been compelled by modern thought to give up, one after another, the strongholds of their position. They run under shelter of what they call faith, or the “inward witness of the spirit”, or the intuitive argument, hoping thereby to escape the enemy’s fire, if I may use so objectionable a phrase. What is called faith, then, or an intuitive spiritual assurance, is a species of reasoning; let its worth be tested honestly.

In the first place, faith or the intuitive argument would prove too much. If Jesus is real, notwithstanding that there is no reliable historical data to warrant the belief, because the believer feels in his own soul that He is real and divine, I answer that the same mode of reasoning – and let us not forget, it is a kind of reasoning – would prove Muhammad a divine savior, and the wooden idol of the savage a god. The African Bushman trembles before an image, because he feels in his own soul that the thing is real. Does that make it real? The Muslim cries unto Muhammad, because he believes in his innermost heart that Muhammad is near and can hear him. He will risk his life on that assurance. To quote to him history and science, to prove that Muhammad is dead and unable to save, would be of no avail, for he has the witness of the spirit in him, an intuitive assurance, that the great prophet sits on the right hand of Allah. An argument which proves too much, proves nothing…

There is in man a faculty for fiction. Before history was born, there was myth; before men could think, they dreamed. It was with the human race in its infancy as it is with the child. The child’s imagination is more active than its reason. It is easier for it to fancy even than to see. It thinks less than it guesses. This wild flight of fancy is checked only by experience. It is reflection which introduces a bit into the mouth of imagination, curbing its pace and subduing its restless spirit. It is, then, as we grow older, and, if I may use the word, riper, that we learn to distinguish between fact and fiction, between history and myth.

In childhood we need play-things, and the more fantastic and bizarre they are, the better we are pleased with them. We dream, for instance, of castles in the air – gorgeous and clothed with the azure hue of the skies. We fill the space about and over us with spirits, fairies, gods, and other invisible and airy beings. We covet the rainbow. We reach out for the moon. Our feet do not really begin to touch the firm ground until we have reached the years of discretion.

I know there are those who wish they could always remain children – living in dreamland. But even if this were desirable, it is not possible. Evolution is our destiny; of what use is it, then, to take up arms against destiny?

Let it be borne in mind that all the religions of the world were born in the childhood of the race. Science was not born until man had matured. There is in this thought a world of meaning.

Children make religions.

Grown up people create science.

The cradle is the womb of all the fairies and faiths of mankind.

The school is the birthplace of science.

That Lodhi's Comment contains misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and mistakes undoubtedly reflects his attempts to maintain his childish delusions. To him (and to all who were indoctrinated in religious balderdash, be they Hindus, Jews, Christians, Muslims, or whatever their parents' perversion of reality) I'd convey a simple message: it's time to put away childish things. As I've elsewhere summarized Mangasarian's assessment:

Religion is the science of children; science is the religion of adults.